O’connor, J T and Caraway, P H (1993) Need for specification format that accommodates engineered projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(4), pp. 757-768. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The construction industry is in need of an industry-wide standard specification format, or structure, at the division level that goes beyond the needs of commercial projects. Such a system should readily accommodate engineered project types such as airports, waterways, tunnels, roads, bridges, water- and waste-water-treatment plants, power plants, and petrochemical facilities. This paper explores the importance of such an industry-wide standard and objectively analyzes the system that currently most closely resembles such a standard, the Construction Specification Institute’s (CSI) MASTERFORMAT. Analysis indicates that CSI Divisions 2 (site work), 15 (mechanical), and 16 (electrical) are either particularly problematic with respect to or nonresponsive to the needs of engineered projects. An alternative division-level standard format is suggested and evaluated. An active industry-wide debate is needed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | power plant, waterway, construction industry, site work, tunnel, specification |
| Subjects: | water management, contractual condition, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, site logistics |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Sustainability, Site Management, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here